Do Police Body Cameras Really Work?

Giving someone discretion over when to monitor themselves causing an increase in violence seems pretty obvious to me.<p>If I have to choose prior to an encounter &quot;do I want this camera on?&quot; and I choose &quot;no&quot;, I have just reminded myself that I can act with impunity. I have just called to my own attention all the things I can get away with because no one will see it. Not only that, but I have also made a small conscious choice to defend myself from scrutiny. Which to me, seems like a small psychological commitment towards doing something bad.

&gt; In places where they closely followed the instructions (use the camera during each encounter if you’re in a treatment group; don’t use it if you’re in a control group), the results were positive—a 37 percent reduction in use of force on average. But if you allow the treatment group discretion to choose when to turn it on, the result is 71 percent greater use of force. Thus the problem seems to arise mainly when officers are allowed to turn cameras on at times of their own choosing.<p>And suddenly, Brin&#x27;s _The Transparent Society_ comes flooding back to memory.

<i>Here’s where better technology could help. Body cameras could be automatically activated immediately when certain cues are triggered, such as when the officer enters a crime hot spot, leaves a police vehicle, takes out handcuffs or a weapon, turns on the siren, or makes a call for assistance on the radio. This way, the officer doesn’t have to think about activating the body camera in a tense situation.</i><p>I&#x27;d taken it for granted that a police body camera would not require manual activation. I&#x27;d also assumed that they should be always on. Is there really need for better technology here, as opposed to just a change of political will?

There&#x27;s an interactive piece from the New York Times that discusses this same idea:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;interactive&#x2F;2016&#x2F;04&#x2F;01&#x2F;us&#x2F;police-bodycam-video.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;interactive&#x2F;2016&#x2F;04&#x2F;01&#x2F;us&#x2F;police-body...</a>

Killing someone is more serious than tampering with evidence.<p>If it is claimed (and it is) that police officers sometimes kill people and get away with it, it&#x27;s easy to conclude that they can also get away with tampering with evidence.<p>Therefore, I believe it&#x27;s easy to conclude that body cameras <i>will do nothing at all</i> to curb the instances of police getting away with killing people.<p>Get ready for &quot;malfunctioning and&#x2F;or obstructed&quot; cameras.

It depends on whether the cameras are just for show (like most CCTV cameras) or whether the authorities actually care. In the Rialto experiment, the police chief was running the experiment as he was doing his master&#x27;s degree with a prestigious university.<p>In places with a long and proud history of police brutality, with a tradition of covering it up at the top levels, the cameras are going to be bought just for show. Soon after officers will realize this and go back to their old ways.

Bodycam rules:<p>- Footage where a only a small portion of the siltation is visible should be taken with a serious grain of salt. - They only work properly when you have 2 cops: there has to be one &quot;recording&quot; from a distance, at an objective angle. - Bodycams should not have an off function. If it was off or disabled somehow, this should reduce the police its credibility to probably below the defended.

A: We don&#x27;t know, and the number of self interested parties pushing them will make it difficult to tell.<p>Everyone from Microsoft to various attorneys and activists are drooling over these things, because the one thing that is certain is that they will generate lots of revenue and create lots of litigation.

I think this article overlooks the multitude of benefits of body cameras. Sure, according to some research they may not reduce violence. But reducing he-said she-said situations can make a much better legal situation.

Future Americans will look back on this era were police are judge, jury, and executioner and say &quot;what a primitive and violent society we once were&quot;.

Even when police have body cameras in the US, there are many problematic policies with them. Here&#x27;s a short primer: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.joincampaignzero.org&#x2F;film-the-police&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.joincampaignzero.org&#x2F;film-the-police&#x2F;</a><p>Personal highlights: footage should not be under the control of the force, and officers should not be permitted to review it before giving statements.

I bet the failure rates on these things are incredibly high!

Politicians and legislators should be the ones wearing body cameras.

Human ingenuity will figure out a way to have it record in a way that doesnt incriminate the police officer.

I find the interoperation problems of software alarming - you would think open source tools would grow in use at some point, even if just the basics (ie: postgres&#x2F;postgis, or tools dumping csv out to other tools, or one or two REST apis).

If they reduce even one case of potential police brutality, then they work.

Body cams as a required accessory for police work is a terrible idea that will have very bad unintended consequences.<p>The very notion that you need to be monitored constantly during your shift to ensure you behave as you were trained to is demeaning and insulting.<p>We trust LEO&#x27;s to carry loaded guns, mace, tasers, and other weaponry, and we expect them to risk their lives in the line of work, yet we also don&#x27;t trust them enough to do their jobs honestly and professionally.<p>If we can&#x27;t trust our law enforcement personnel to do their jobs without constant video surveillance, sometimes under very difficult circumstances amidst a hostile civilian population for example in the ghetto areas, then we basically can&#x27;t trust them at all and should find a different model for controlling (or ignoring) criminal behavior.<p>The ongoing slowdown in police activity in the ghetto areas of Baltimore, Chicago, etc., and the accompanying uptick in violent crime should be a sobering indication of what&#x27;s in store if we tell our police, &quot;We don&#x27;t trust you and we blame you if anything goes wrong, now get out there and risk your lives for us.&quot;<p>Put yourself in their shoes and think on this. &quot;I&#x27;m honest, I have no reason to oppose video,&quot; you may claim from your safe, suburban sofa. But get out on the streets and deal with some of the tough customers they have to deal with, then let&#x27;s hear how nice and proper you are. These characters only respect strength. If the police are hobbled and limited, they&#x27;ll just laugh at them.<p>I prefer the Giuliani model of police administration. Back the police force, give them the authority to stop and frisk, to pick people up for loitering or breaking windows (the &quot;Broken Window&quot; policy), to establish total control on the streets. Then the criminal element will be cowed and subdued, and the police will be confident and enthusiastic, and this whole issue of police feeling they have to overcompensate and work around the laws will go away because they&#x27;ll be working with the community, working with the government toward the same goals.

The police have created an environment where the people on the street know they are going to come in with overwhelming force.<p>The police have created an environment where everyone fears any interaction with the police because if the officer is scared they can and will kill you.<p>With no consequences for the police.<p>The police turn on the cameras and expect people to suddenly forget the above. Wont happen.<p>Paybacks on the police will be taken by certain individuals if they are given a chance.<p>Frankly all public servants should be required to have a camera running at all times when they are working. If a cop is carrying his weapon he isn&#x27;t off duty and should have his camera running.